Disclaimer -
to strong and active Mormons -
this will offend you - Don't read.
So, normally I just let some of the bloggernacle stuff blow over but today, I was dumbfounded. Actually, after I thought about it for a while, It kind of made sense. I just needed to recognize the pattern.
What am I talking about?
A professor at BYU names Randy Botts; some statements he made and then; the almighty MORG and the axe that literally came crashing down.
Mostly, I don't care about all things Mormon now days. I care about how it affects me personally but after that, hmmmft, it is what it is. Today though, I am a bit perturbed, it's an underdog kind of thing I think. I guess I am more like my Mom than I thought.
Synopsis - BYU religion professor gives The Washington Post a brief and telling history in his own narrative of why the LDS church didn't give the blacks the priesthood, explaining as he did, I am sure from his personal narrative what was the history of the practice of rasism pre lifting of the ban of the priesthood to African Americans.
I read the article; I grew up in the very church that denied people of colour the priesthood. I sat in the seminary classes, the religion classes, and the Sunday School classes where I was taught from the corelated manuals produced by the church that skin color WAS an indication of one's condition in the pre-existence. That "dark and loathsome" was indicative of sin. PERIOD.
I remember a long and drawn out conversation with a seminary teacher as I realized my good friend, whose father was black, would never be allowed to experience the temple (1975). I felt helpless as she left the church feeling defeated before she even started dating. No Mormon man who wanted a temple wedding was ever going to fall in love with her. I asked why the supposed sins of generations so far back fell on her. My seminary teacher couldn't answer it but defaulted to the B.S. answer of "it will all work out in heaven." You have no idea how that answer as haunted me to this day.
In 1978, as the priesthood ban was lifted I felt exhilarated. It didn't matter to many though as they still held fast to the belief that skin color was somehow tied to some kind of indication of valency prior to coming to earth. I could share some of the warped and twisted beliefs of my ex but I won’t give them the time or credence.
Slowly, as the church started expanding its missionary work into Africa and was failing in it's efforts here on this continent I saw the church trying to erase it's very history. BIG SURPRISE THERE! It's not like erasing history is new right?
So why am I mad? Professor Bott did not misspeak to what was the cultural and literal history of the reasons why the LDS church denied the priesthood to the blacks as he most likely was taught. AS WRONG AS IT IS AND WAS - his words spoke to a truth that many LDS members lived by and thought, no, were taught to believe.
I celebrated and shouted for joy that day in 1978 driving down Macleod Trail listening to the radio when I heard the church had dropped the ban. It was wrong and I knew in my heart it was always wrong. I have always stood against the assertion that skin color had anything to do with anyone’s beliefs or valency or goodness. WE ARE ALL EQUAL IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD.
So, how does the church react to Brother Bott’s statements? (See church news website)
Now, do they cough up to the reasons for the ban; Nope. Big surprise there.What they do do is they throw him right under the bus. Typical paatern. No doubt, Professor Bott's job is gone; his life forever changed, he becomes villified all for speaking what was for many of us a doctrine taught over and over again. How sad.
If he still believes that "doctrine" then shame on him but if his words were only speaking to the history of the "doctrine"then shame on the church for openly condeming him. They should condemn themselves.
Through the history of the church this is the procedure. When the church needed statehood for Utah and the US legislature unearthed the current practice of polygamy STILL happening for years after the manifesto - (1890-1904, some sat longer), what does the Wilford Woodruff, who had just recently entered into his own umpteenth marriage do? He takes 2 of members of the quorum of the twelve, parades them though an excommunication, publicly slapping their hands and says "see, we do excommunicate men who practice polygamy" and then promptly continues to take on more wives himself. (This is the history of the church that they hide for reasons plainly clear.)
So why does this bother me, well, you see, Brother Botts was reprimanded not for what he said but for saying it in the first place. Maybe the right thing to do is to realistically and promptly cough up to the ugly racism that existed within the doctrines of the church, OWN IT so that is can't and won't happen again.
Ok wait, the church is still full of "ism"s. Sexism is alive and strong, and thrives under the "doctrines" of the church. And please, don't even get me started about the 'Ism" of Prop 8. How many young people have to die because of the warped and backwards teaching that forces shame on them and makes famillies choose between a child and a belief.
Yeah, it's another one of those "leave the church but can't leave it alone" moments. This time though, it reached my computer screen and shouted for a comment. So I wrote my 2 cents worth.
So glad that the "ism's" of the LDS church are no longer a part of my life.
Free at last, Free at last.









